ATIM NKANG ITIAT, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MANDU PETER ITIAT, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND FOSKEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND RAYMOND FOSKEY D/B/A MONTICELLO TOWING, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A personal representative of a deceased wrongful death victim appeals a summary judgment in favor of a tow truck driver in a rear-end collision case. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the tow truck driver suddenly changed lanes and reduced speed, which would rebut the presumption of negligence against the rear driver.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the tow truck driver suddenly changed lanes and reduced speed and whether those actions caused the collision. The appellant presented sufficient evidence to potentially rebut the presumption of negligence, requiring submission to a jury.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment must conclusively show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the…
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence raises any issue of material fact, is conflicting, permits different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issues…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought”
Establishes the stringent standard for granting summary judgment that requires courts to favor the non-moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's husband died in a rear-end collision with a tow truck on Interstate 10 following a rain storm. The trial court granted summary judgment fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rebutting Presumption Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, as the personal representative of her late husband’s estate, requests review of an adverse summary final judgment entered in her action seeking damages for the wrongful death of her husband. Because we conclude that the record demonstrates the existence of genuine issues as to material facts, we reverse.
Appellant’s husband died as the result of a rear-end collision with a tow truck on Interstate 10 following a rain storm. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellees based upon its determination that appellant had “failed to provide ... evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on the rear driver in a rear-end collision.” Our standard of review is de novo. E.g., The Fla. Bar v. Cosnow, 797 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla.2001); Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000).
The law in Florida regarding summary judgments is well settled:
*141[A] party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought.... A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law....
If the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it.
Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985) (citations omitted). Succinctly put, “[w]hen acting upon a motion for summary judgment, if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citations omitted).
The summary judgment was based upon the trial court’s determination that appellant had “failed to provide ... evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on the rear driver in a rear-end collision,” citing Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570 (Fla.2001), and Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Those two cases stand for the general proposition that a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the rear driver arises in rear-end collision cases and, accordingly, the burden rests on the rear driver to present evidence that “ ‘fairly and reasonably tends to show that the presumption of negligence is misplaced.” Clampitt, 786 So.2d at 573 (quoting Guile v. Boggs, 174 So.2d 26, 29 (Fla.1965)). Once such evidence is presented, the presumption dissipates, and the case must go to the jury “to reconcile the conflicts and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.” Gulle, 174 So.2d at 29. See also Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc., 936 So.2d 646, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “There are three general categories of affirmative explanations that [have been held to] effectively rebut the presumption of negligence: 1) an abrupt and arbitrary stop in a place where it could not reasonably be expected or an unexpected change of lanes ...; 2) a mechanical failure, i.e., sudden brake failure, that causes the rear driver to collide with the lead driver ...; and 3) the lead vehicle is illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped.” Id. at 649-50 (citations omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that, drawing every reasonable inference in favor of appellant, genuine issues exist as to material facts— i.e., whether appellee Foskey suddenly changed lanes and reduced his speed and, if so, whether the collision was caused by those actions. Accordingly, we conclude, further, that the trial court incorrectly determined that appellant had “failed to provide ... evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on the rear driver in a rear-end collision.” Therefore, we reverse the summary final judgment, and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jiminez v. Faccone, 98 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…‘[wjhen acting upon a motion for summary judgment, if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.’” Itiat v. Foskey, 28 So. 3d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) [*624] (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). In granting the motion for summary judgment as to liability, the trial court determined that there were…
-
Truman McGILL and Margo McGill v. Perez, 59 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ds to show that the real fact is not as presumed.” Guile, 174 So. 2d at 28-29. In this case, disputed issues of material fact should have precluded entry of a summary judgment based on the presumption of negligence. For example, in Itiat v. Foskey, 28 So. 3d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the court noted that there were disputed issues of fact about whether the preceding driver suddenly changed lanes and reduced his speed, thereby causing or contributing to the crash. The court held that the existence of tho…
-
Haynes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 120 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…al court entered a Final Judgment effectuating its prior ruling. Our standard of review of an order granting a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000); Itiat v. Foskey, 28 So. 3d 140, 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). A summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a [*654] matter of law. Volusia Cnty., 760 So. 2d at 130. “[A] party moving for summary judgm…
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)
- Colletta P. Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2001)
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Gertrude Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- THE Florida BAR v. Cosnow, 797 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2001)
- Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc., 936 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)